Colton School District Classroom Wing Seismic Rehab-Final.pdf

Colton School District 53

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ARCHITECTURAL &

ENGINEERING SERVICES

Colton High School Classroom Wing Seismic Rehabilitation

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR:

Chris Gibb Executive Director of Operations

Phone: 503.824.3535 Fax: 503.824.3530 Email: businessmanager@colton.k12.or.us

Colton.k12.or.us

ISSUE DATE: August 15th, 2024 RFP CLOSING (DUE) DATE September 6th, 2024, 2:00pm

NO LATE RESPONSES WILL BE ACCEPTED

SUBMITTAL LOCATION

Attention: Chris Gibb

30429 S Grays Hill Road Colton, OR 97017

2 | P a g e

Introduction:

Colton School District (the “District”) is seeking proposals from firms for the architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical design for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Colton High School Classroom Wing (the “Project”), located at 30205 S Wall Street, Colton, OR 97017. In early 2024, the District applied for and received a Seismic Rehabilitation Grant (“SRG”) for the project through the Infrastructure Finance Authority: Business Oregon, based on the application prepared by ZCS. The intent of this RFP is for the consultant to provide an integrated design solution for the Colton High School Classroom Wing. As part of this grant, a preliminary rehabilitation feasibility report was prepared for each portion of the project and is enclosed. The District was awarded $2.5 million for the design and construction of Colton High School Classroom Wing Seismic Rehabilitation.

Project Description:

The seismic rehabilitation of the existing classroom wing at Colton High School, as detailed in the attached evaluation report, focuses on addressing the vulnerabilities of this structure built in 1960. The classroom wing, categorized as an ASCE 41-17 Building Type: URM, features a roof structure composed of an unblocked plywood diaphragm supported by light timber purlins and glulam beams.

The walls consist of 6” and 8” unreinforced masonry, with interior and exterior finishes including 2x4 studs spaced at 16” o.c., lath and plaster interiors, and ¾” plywood exteriors. The floor structure relies on a slab-on-grade foundation. Notable structural concerns include unsupported hinges in the perimeter window walls and large window walls that offer no lateral resistance. The retrofit will cover an area of 14,000 square feet, aiming to enhance the building's seismic resilience and ensure the safety of its occupants.

The District intends to use either the typical Design-Bid-Build procurement project delivery method or the CM/GC procurement project delivery method for this Project. Pre-Design/Schematic Design would begin immediately upon award and approval of the resulting design contract. Construction is anticipated to start in June 2025 with the Project completion expected by September 2025. The Project may be vacated during the construction period.

Scope of Work:

Perform a seismic evaluation of the building, per American Society of Civil Engineers (“ASCE”) Standard 41-17 “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings”. Develop rehabilitation and mitigation strategies per ASCE Standard 41-17 and the 2022 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (“OSSC”). It is the wish of the District to rehabilitate the building to meet the rehabilitation objective of immediate occupancy.

Based on research and evaluation efforts performed during the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant (“SRG”) in preparation for the project, the structural improvements listed in the enclosed evaluation report should be considered for the existing structure. Preliminary rehabilitation drawings (enclosed) were prepared to assist in defining the necessary scope of potential rehabilitation work for this structure. Refer to Section

6.0 Deficiencies & Repairs found in Attachment A – Structural Seismic Evaluation Report for a list of potential repairs required to seismically rehabilitate the building to meet the requirements outlined in the SRG applications.

3 | P a g e

Selection Process:

This Request for Proposals (“RFP”) and the selection process will be conducted pursuant to the terms of this RFP, the Oregon Attorney General's Model Rules for Consultant Selection, OAR Chapter 137, Division 48, and the District’s applicable Board Policies.

Compensation:

Compensation will be based on a total “not-to-exceed” amount for services and reimbursable expenses, with “not-to-exceed” maximums for the following individual phases of the design: Pre-Design/ Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, and Construction Administration services, including record documentation. The amount of compensation will be negotiated with the Apparent Successful Proposer.

Proposal Requirements:

The Proposer and all firms, subsidiaries and individuals providing professional services shall be currently licensed to practice in each of their respective areas of professional expertise in the State of Oregon, and shall comply with all State of Oregon Architect and Professional Engineer licensure requirements.

The submittal must include the following, in addition to what is required to comply with the Evaluation Criteria below:

• The firm’s name, address, phone number, and facsimile number;

• The name of the contact person within the firm and his/her email address;

• A list of the firm’s key personnel who would be assigned to this Project, by discipline;

• The name and Oregon registration number of the Project engineer who will serve as the Engineer of Record;

• The names of additional Project engineer(s) the firm proposes to provide services on this project, along with specific projects each of these persons has worked on in the past three years;

• Illustrations or photographs of at least three (3) relevant projects completed by the firm and involving the above named individuals; and

• The construction cost and building area (in gross square feet) of each reference project;

• Date of completion of each reference project;

• Location of each reference project;

• The function of each reference project;

• The construction delivery method used for each reference project;

• Whether the project was completed on schedule and within the budget or not;

• Responsibilities of those involved on each reference project who would provide services on these projects;

• Name, address and current telephone number of the owner representative most appropriate to discuss your firm’s performance on each reference project;

4 | P a g e

• A Gantt chart providing a proposed schedule for the Pre-Design/Schematic Design, Design Development, and Construction Documents phases for each project.

If awarded the Contract, the Proposer must accept, as Contract performance obligations, the duty to actively pursue the plans as set forth in the Proposer’s response.

Evaluation Criteria:

Please indicate in writing the following information about your firm’s ability and desire to perform this work. Firms will be rated based upon the weight assigned to each item as noted in parentheses at the end of each statement below.

1) Firm Capabilities (10 points)

a) Describe your firm's background and experience, including company history, length of time in the industry, service area, staffing size and capabilities.

b) Describe your firm's design philosophy.

c) Describe your firm’s recent (past ten years) experience with design of renovations to public agency facilities (i.e. Fire Stations, Police Stations, Education facilities, etc.), and implementing the agency’s design criteria.

2) Project Team (15 points)

a) Provide your firm’s staffing plan and specify key personnel to be assigned to this project. Include an organizational chart, staff roles and a current resume of key personnel.

b) Describe what scope of services will be provided by proposing firm and whether sub-consultants are needed to complete this work. Identify the sub-consultants and the key personnel of the sub-consultants that you propose to use on this project.

3) Experience with the State of Oregon Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program (25 points)

a) Describe your experience completing seismic rehabilitation projects funded by the Business

Oregon SRG Program.

b) Provide record of performance on previously completed projects funded by the Business Oregon

SRG Program. Indicate whether the project met budget and schedule expectations.

c) Provide case studies on three (3) similar projects completed within the last 5 years. Include information about the size, construction type, building uses, construction delivery method and whether the project was completed on time and within budget.

4) Record of Performance & References (20 points)

a) Describe your firm's past record of performance on contracts with governmental agencies and private owners with respect to such factors as cost control, quality of work, ability to meet schedules, and contract administration.

b) Three (3) letters of reference must be provided, preferably for projects of similar type and size.

Provide contact information for each reference.

5) Project Approach (20 points)

a) Describe your approach to completing seismic rehabilitation projects and what special services, systems, or qualifications the firm has that would benefit the District in this project. Include familiarity with this project specifically and its specific requirements.

b) Provide examples of lessons learned and examples of how your firm has worked with Owners and Contractors to minimize surprises during seismic rehabilitation projects.

5 | P a g e

c) Proposed cost management & quality control techniques to be employed.

6) Project Location (10 points)

a) Describe your availability to and familiarity with the area in which the Project is located, including knowledge of design and construction techniques unique to the area.

b) Describe proposer’s plan to maximize and document local participation.

Evaluation Process:

The selection committee will score each submittal on the basis of responses to the evaluation categories.

Submittals will be rated based upon the weights assigned to each item as noted in the parentheses at the end of the categories.

Each category will be assigned a weight between 0 and 30. Each member of the evaluation committee will rank each firm in each category between 0 and 5, and multiply that number by the weight assigned to the category. The individual evaluation committee members will then total the weighted score from all of the criteria to obtain the total score. The result of this total score will be used to rank all respondents.

The RFP also requires reference information for your firm. The District will utilize this information and any other independently obtained references that can provide background on the firm. This information will not be separately scored, but results obtained from these and/or other reference checks will be utilized in evaluating and scoring in the other categories and in the final ranking.

The evaluation committee will meet and use the individual evaluation committee member rankings as a beginning of their discussion. The discussion of the responses will include firm strengths and weaknesses and the individual evaluation committee member scorings. The committee reserves the option to interview finalists as ranked from the results of the evaluation committee discussion and scoring.

Selection Procedure and Timetable:

The selection procedure described below will be used to evaluate the capabilities of interested firms to provide the professional services to the District for this Project.

August 15th, 2024 Issue RFP

August 22th, 2024 at 9:00AM Optional Site Visit/Pre-Proposal Conference

August 29th, 2024 at 2:00PM Questions and Solicitation Protests Deadline

August 30th, 2024 Owner’s written response to questions

September 6th, 2024 at 2:00PM RFP response due

September 19th, 2024 Optional Interviews with Selection Committee

September 23rd, 2024 Notice of Intent to Award

September 30th, 2024 at 2:00PM Selection Protest Deadline

October 14th, 2024 Board Action to Approve Contract

6 | P a g e

October 28th, 2024 District Finalized Contract with Successful Proposer

Submission:

Submit one original and three (3) copies of your written proposal, along with an electronic version on a USB flash drive, to be received by the closing date and time listed in this document to:

Chris Gibb

30429 S Grays Hill Road

Colton, OR 97017

Your response must be contained in a document not to exceed fifteen (15) single-sided pages including pictures, charts, graphs, tables and text the firm deems appropriate to be part of the review of the firm’s response. Resumes of key individuals proposed to be involved in this project are exempted from the 15-page limit and should be appended to the end of your response. No supplemental information to the 15-page Proposal will be allowed. Appended resumes of the proposed key individuals and client reference letters, along with a transmittal letter, table of contents, front and back covers, and blank section/numerical dividers, etc., will not be counted in the 15-page limit.

Information shall be presented in the same order as the above evaluation criteria. The response should be submitted in soft-bound (comb or spiral, spiral preferred – no three-ring binders) format. The basic text information of the response should be presented in standard business font size (minimum 10-point), and reasonable (prefer 1 (one) inch) margins. Your response must be signed by an officer of your firm with the authority to commit the firm.

The District may reject any submittal not in compliance with all prescribed public bidding procedures and requirements, and may cancel this solicitation or reject for good cause, all responses upon finding by The District that it is in the public interest to do so.

Please note that throughout this Project, the District will not accept responses or queries that require the District to pay the cost of production or delivery.

Telephone, facsimile, or electronically transmitted submittals will not be accepted. Responses received after the closing date and time will not be considered.

Questions:

All questions and contacts with the District regarding any information in this RFP must be addressed in written form to the Contract Administrator at the address, email or fax listed in this document.

Solicitation Protests:

Respondents may submit a written request for clarification or change or protest of particular solicitation provisions and specifications and contract terms and conditions (including comments on any specifications that a firm believes limits competition) to the Contract Administrator at the address, email or fax listed in this document. Such requests and protests must be received no later than 2:00pm, September 30th, 2024. Such requests or protests must state the reasons for the request or protest and any proposed changes to the solicitation provisions and specifications and contract terms and conditions.

7 | P a g e

Failure to file a protest by this time will be deemed a waiver of any claim by a respondent. The District will issue a written disposition of each such protest no less than three (3) business days before proposals are due. If the District upholds the protest, in whole or in part, the District may, in its sole discretion, issue an addendum reflecting its disposition or take other appropriate action.

Change or Modification:

Any change or modification to the specifications or the procurement process will be in the form of an addendum to the RFP and will be made available to all firms via email from the Contract Administrator.

No information received in any manner different than as described herein will serve to change the RFP in any way, regardless of the source of the information. Any request for clarification or change or protest of anything contained in an addendum must be received by the date and time stated in the addendum, or they will not be considered.

Selection Protests:

Any respondent to this RFP who claims to have been adversely affected or aggrieved by the selection of a competing respondent may submit a written protest of the selection to the Contract Administrator at the following address within seven days after notification of that selection:

Chris Gibb

Executive Director of Operations Colton School District 53 30429 S Gray Hill Road

Colton, OR 97017 Phone: 503.824.3535 Fax: 503.824.3530 Email: businessmanger@colton.k12.or.us

Any such protests received by the Contract Administrator after the seven days will not be considered.

The protest must state clearly the basis (or bases) for the protest and any legal authority in support thereof. At the request of the protester, a hearing will be conducted before District staff. At such hearing, the protester and other interested parties will have the opportunity to appear and make an oral presentation of the basis for protest. The Director of Business Services will either uphold or deny the protest. If the protest is denied, the District will proceed to award the Contract as planned. The selection decision notification will be made by the Contract Administrator via email.

Proprietary Information:

The District will retain this RFP and one copy of each original response received, together with copies of all documents pertaining to the award of a contract. These documents will be made part of a file or record, which will be open to public inspection after responder selection and award is announced. If a response contains any information that is considered a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2), mark each sheet with the following legend: “This data constitutes a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2), and must not be disclosed except in accordance with the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS Chapter 192.”

The Oregon Public Records Law exempts from disclosure only bone fide trade secrets, and the exception from disclosure applies only “unless the public interest requires disclosure in the particular

8 | P a g e instance”. Therefore, non-disclosure of documents or any portion of a document submitted as part of a response may depend upon official or judicial determination made pursuant to the Public Records Law.

In order to facilitate public inspection of the non-confidential portion of the response, material designated as confidential must accompany the response, but must be readily separable from it. Prices, makes, model or catalog numbers of items offered, scheduled delivery dates, and terms of payment will be publicly available regardless of any designation to the contrary. Any response marked as a trade secret in its entirety will be considered non-responsive and will be rejected.

Project Contract:

The District is seeking to award a contract to an engineering firm for programming, schematic design, design development, construction documents, bidding, and construction phases. The successful proposer is required to provide and execute a contract satisfactory to the District.

Certification of Compliance with Tax Laws:

By submission of your proposal, the signatory (a duly authorized representative of the submitting firm) must certify that the firm is not, to the best of their knowledge, in violation of any Oregon tax law. For purpose of this certification, “Oregon Tax Laws” means a state tax imposed by ORS 320.005 to 320.150 and 403.200 to 403.250, ORS Chapters 118, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321 and 323; the elderly rental assistance program under ORS 310.630 to 310.706; and local taxes administered by the Oregon Department of Revenue under ORS 305.620.

Insurance Provisions:

During the term of the resulting contract, the successful proposer will be required to maintain in full force, at its own expense, from insurance companies authorized to transact business of insurance in the state of Oregon, each insurance coverage/policy as set forth in the contract.

ESB/MBE/WBE:

The District is committed to increasing opportunities for Emerging Small Businesses and Minority and Women Owned Businesses, and the District strongly encourages its consultants to utilize these businesses in providing services and materials for the District contracts and projects.

Additional Requirements:

Pursuant to OAR 580-061, by submitting a proposal, the proposer certifies that the proposer has not discriminated against Minority, Women or Emerging Small Business Enterprises in obtaining any required subcontracts.

Pursuant to OAR 580-061-0040, Proposers are hereby notified that policies applicable to consultants and contractors have been adopted that prohibit sexual harassment and that proposers and their employees are required to adhere to the District’s policy prohibiting sexual harassment in their interactions.

9 | P a g e

Exhibits:

Exhibit A - Structural Seismic Evaluation Report (including Preliminary Rehabilitation Drawings) prepared by ZCS – Colton High School Classroom Wing Seismic Rehabilitation

End of RFP www.zcsea.com

Seismic Evalua� on Report For:

COLTON HIGH SCHOOL

CLASSROOM WING

30205 S Wall St Colton, OR 97017

Colton School District

Prepared By:

ZCS Engineering & Architecture

Ma! hew R. Smith, PE, SE, Principal

524 Main Street, Suite 2, Oregon City, OR 97045

503.659.2205 | Ma! S@zcsea.com

Exhibit A - Structural Seismic Evaluation Report (including Preliminary Rehabilitation Drawings) prepared by ZCS – Colton High School Classroom Wing

Colton School District December 2023

Colton High School Classroom Wing P-2826-22

Building

Part

Building Part

Name

Included in

Retrofit

Year

Built

Building

Type***

Nonstructural

Retrofits Included in

Scope Y/N***

Previous Seismic

Retrofit Y/N*** (Year if Yes)

A Classroom Wing Yes 1960 URM Yes No

B Music & Office No 1960

C Classroom No 1994

D Library No 1986

E Gymnasium No 1954

F Auditorium No 1967

No

Project Summary Information

*** Entries required ONLY for building parts included in proposed seismic retrofit. If building part was previously or is currently being retrofit, please list the building part’s Risk Category and retrofit design

Performance Objective, if known.

Nonstructural deficiencies posing life safety risk MUST be included in the scope of work and budget.

Seismic fragility inputs for existing buildings with previous seismic retrofits MUST be adjusted to reflect previous seismic retrofit measures completed for a building part.

Total Retrofit Cost $ 2,499,080.00

Retrofit Square Feet

Retrofit Cost per Square

Foot

Note: The hazard level of tsunami, flood zone, landslide/slope instability, and liquefaction must be explicitly answered either via DOGAMI website, DOGAMI consultation, and/or a geotechnical report. If the hazard level is unknown, it must be assumed to exist and be mitigated or otherwise resolved in the conceptual retrofit scope of work.

14,000

$ 178.51

Is the campus within a tsunami, FEMA flood zone, landslide/slope instability, liquefaction potential or other high hazard area? If so, provide documentation (e.g.

the Oregon Statewide Hazards Viewer by DOGAMI). ** Projects within the code defined Tsunami Design Zone require consultation with DOGAMI prior to application submittal. Applicant shall include such documentation with the application.

Engineering Report Cover Page

Project Summary Page Page 1

Building Parts Identification Page 5

Statement of the Performance Objective Page 6

Summary of Deficiencies

Structural Seismic Deficiencies Page 10

Nonstructural Seismic Deficiencies Page 11

Summary of Mitigation/Retrofit

Structural Mitigation/Retrofit Page 10

Nonstructural Mitigation/Retrofit Page 11

Summary Construction Cost Estimate

Direct Cost Page 14

Indirect Soft Cost Page 14

Certification Statement by Engineer Page 15

ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 Checklist

Basic Configuration Checklist Appendix B

Building System Structural Checklist Appendix B

Nonstructural Checklist Appendix B

Retrofit Drawings & Sketches Appendix C

DOGAMI or Geotechnical Report Appendix D

Itemized Construction Cost Estimate Appendix E

Rapid Visual Screening Appendix F

Engineering Report Checklist

1.0 Project Introduction

30205 S Wall St.

ASCE 41-17 (Tier 1 Analysis)

IV

Immediate Occupancy for

BSE-1E and Life Safety for BSE-2E

Position Retention for BSE-1E and Hazards Reduced for BSE-2E

URM

$2,499,080.00

$178.51

Colton School District is located in Colton, Oregon in Clackamas County. The District operates three (3) schools located within the community including the property of interest, Colton High School Classroom Wing. The District has retained ZCS Engineering and Architecture (ZCS) to perform a seismic evaluation of Colton High School

Classroom Wing that provides the District with an objective, comprehensive analysis of the condition of the building’s seismic resisting systems. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the seismic lateral resisting system deficiencies when compared to buildings designed using modern building codes. This evaluation was performed in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers “Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing

Buildings ASCE/SEI 41-17”.

SEISMIC EVALUATION SNAPSHOT

Street Address

Evaluation Standard

Building’s Risk Category

Target Building Performance Level

Target Non-Structural Performance Level

ASCE 41 Building Type

Cost Estimate

Cost/Square Foot

2.0 Building Description

Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Walls URM

These buildings have a perimeter bearing walls that consist of unreinforced clay brick, stone, or concrete masonry. Interior bearing walls, where present, also consist of unreinforced clay brick, stone, or concrete masonry. In older construction, floor and roof framing consists of straight or diagonal lumber sheathing supported by wood joists, which, in turn, are supported on posts and timbers. In more recent construction, floors consist of structural panel or plywood sheathing rather than lumber sheathing. The diaphragms are flexible relative to the walls. Where they exist, ties between the walls and the diaphragms consist of anchors or bent steel plates embedded in the mortar joints and attached to framing. The foundation system may consist of a variety of elements.

The building being considered in this report includes the part listed in the Project Summary Information. ZCS has reviewed the building and its construction to classify its lateral system as identified in ASCE 41-17. This lateral determination will be used throughout this evaluation. The lateral system present is noted below. This determination was made after observing the subject facility and reviewing the available existing drawings. A description of this structure type is listed below and specifically identifies the lateral load resisting system. In addition to the lateral system present, ZCS has summarized the gravity load carrying systems of the subject facility included later in this section.

Construction Year: 1960

Building Name: Classroom Wing

ASCE 41-17 Building Type: URM

In Scope?: Yes

Construction Year: 1960

Building Name: Music & Office

ASCE 41-17 Building Type:

In Scope?: No

Construction Year: 1994

Building Name: Classroom Addition

ASCE 41-17 Building Type:

In Scope?: No

Construction Year: 1986

Building Name: Library

ASCE 41-17 Building Type:

In Scope?: No

Construction Year: 1954

Building Name: Gymnasium

ASCE 41-17 Building Type:

In Scope?: No

Construction Year: 1967

Building Name: Auditorium

ASCE 41-17 Building Type:

In Scope?: No

Figure 1 - Colton High School Classroom Wing Key Plan

Building Part A Construction:

o ASCE 41-17 Building Type:

o Roof Structure:

o Walls:

o Floor Structure and Foundation:

o Notable Structural Features/Concerns:

o Unsupported hinge in perimeter window walls.

o Large window walls that provide no lateral resistance.

o Slab-on-grade with concrete strip footings.

o 6” and 8” unreinforced masonry walls interior and exterior.

o 2x4 studs @ 16” o.c. with lath and plaster interior and ¾” plywood exterior.

D

E

F o URM o Unblocked plywood roof diaphragm supported by light timber purlins and glulam beams.

Below is a figure identifying the building parts on campus and listing applicable information. See below for descriptions of building parts included in the evaluation and applicable building types as noted above.

BUILDING PARTS

A

B

C

A

B C

D

E

F

G

3.0 Seismic Evaluation Methodology

The subject structure was evaluated using information gathered from site observations, available historic construction documents, and interviews with District staff. This information was then utilized to perform a structural evaluation as outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineer’s “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of

Existing Buildings – ASCE 41-17” (ASCE 41-17). ASCE 41-17 is referenced as the standard for seismic evaluations of existing buildings by the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) which is referenced by the Oregon Structural

Specialty Code (OSSC). Further, ASCE 41-17 is the evaluation tool required by the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant

Program for grant applications.

ASCE 41-17 provides several levels of evaluation (Tiers 1-3) depending on the level of evaluation and/or retrofit being performed. The Tier 1 evaluation is a quick checklist selected based on the type of construction and the performance objective of the building and is the baseline tool for preliminary seismic evaluations. In the case of this evaluation, a Tier 1 was performed to identify the likely structural deficiencies requiring retrofit to meet the performance objective stated below.

The OSSC classifies buildings into risk categories based on the type of building and occupancy type. The building’s risk category informs the required performance objective post retrofit. Risk categories I and II cover low risk structures. Risk category III includes school buildings that are not required to be used as emergency shelters . Risk category IV includes emergency service buildings and school buildings that are required to be designed as emergency shelters. Figure 2, below, identifies the performance objective for each risk category.

For risk category IV structures, the intent is that the building can be inspected then immediately reoccupied following a seismic event to continue to function as an emergency service building or function as an emergency structure.

In accordance with the table below, building A is categorized as a risk category IV structures and was evaluated to meet the Life Safety structural performance and Hazards Reduced nonstructural performance level for BSE-2E loading and the Immediate Occupancy structural performance and Position Retention nonstructural performance level for BSE-1E loading.

Figure 2 - Building Performance Objectives

Source: Table 2-2, ASCE 41-17: American Society of Civil Engineers – Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings

D – Default

Moderately High

High

0.697

0.486 fa = 1.402 | fv = 2.147

0.313

0.177

Fa = 1.6 | Fv = 2.4

Source: SEAOC and OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/

4.0 Seismicity

Seismic design is based on site specific parameters that relate to the location of the building relative to faults and the soil that supports the building. The United States Geologic Survey has developed seismic design data that is utilized to perform the calculations specified in ASCE 41-17. The table below summarizes the factors appropriate for computing the seismic lateral loads for the design earthquake specified in ASCE 41-17.

Sx1

Soil Condition Amplification Factors (Fa, Fv)

SITE SPECIFIC SEISMICITY

ASCE 7-16 Site Soil Classification

FEMA P-154 Seismicity Region (Table 2-2)

ASCE 41-17 Level of Seismicity (Table 2-4)

BSE-2E:

Sxs

Sx1

Soil Condition Amplification Factors (fa, fv)

BSE-1E:

Sxs

5.0 Site Specific Hazards

Site specific hazards were assessed as part of our engineering evaluation. The hazards evaluated in our analysis included liquefaction, slope failure/landslide, surface fault rupture, and tsunami potential. These potential hazards were evaluated using ASCE 41-17 guidelines, as well as information provided by the online Oregon HazVu:

Statewide Geohazards Viewer, maintained by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI).

Tsunami risk was evaluated using the ASCE Tsunami Hazard Tool. Results from the HazVu analysis are included in

Appendix D. Unless noted below, the hazards listed above are not present at the site.

6.0 Deficiencies and Repairs

Tier 1 Deficiency

Description Deficiency Statement Repair Statement

Plan Key

Note

IO BASIC CHECKLIST

LOAD PATH The structure does not contain a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation.

Provide full height columns to resolve hinge.

S1

ADJACENT

BUILDINGS

The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is less than

0.5% of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 1.0% in moderate seismicity, and 3.0% in high seismicity.

Provide seismic isolation joint to avoid pounding of the taller structure into the lower structure. Provide all new gravity framing and lateral resisting elements as necessary to provide building separation.

- Provide new beam connections and ledgers with slotted holes that can accommodate movement while transferring gravity and in-plane lateral forces as needed.

S2

URM: IO CHECKLIST

REDUNDANCY The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is less than 2.

install new plywood shear walls in transverse direction to ensure adequate redundancy.

S3

SHEAR STRESS

CHECK

The shear stress in the unreinforced masonry shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is greater than

30lb/in.2 for clay units and 70lb/in.2 for concrete units.

Install new plywood shear walls to ensure adequate shear capacity.

S4

The table below summarizes both the structural and nonstructural deficiencies noted in the Tier 1 evaluation and states both the proposed retrofit methodology and the plan key note that corresponds to the scope items in the preliminary plans and the cost estimate. See Appendix B for complete Tier 1 check sheets. Drawings illustrating the proposed retrofit measures are attached in Appendix C.

Tier 1 Deficiency

Description Deficiency Statement Repair Statement

Plan Key

Note

WALL ANCHORAGE Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on the diaphragm for lateral support are not anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. Connections do not have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick

Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7.

Install new out-of-plane anchorage.

S5

TRANSFER TO

SHEAR WALLS

Diaphragms are not connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear walls, or the connections are not able to develop the shear strength of the walls or diaphragms.

Install new hardware for transfer of seismic forces from diaphragm to shear walls. S6

PROPORTIONS The height-to-thickness ratio of the shear walls at each story is greater than the following:

Top story of multi-story building 9

First story of multi-story building 15

All other conditions 13

Provide out-of-plane resistance for existing URM walls by installing new wood framed walls.

S7

CROSS TIES There are not continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords.

Provide new continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. S8

DIAGONALLY

SHEATHED AND

UNBLOCKED

DIAPHRAGMS

Not all diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 30 ft and aspect ratios less than or equal to 3-to-1.

Strenthen existing plywood diaphragm

A. Install new plywood shear walls to reduce diaphragm span

B. Renail existing plywood diaphragm.

S9

STIFFNESS OF WALL

ANCHORS

Anchors of concrete or masonry walls to wood structural elements are not installed taut or are not stiff enough to limit the relative movement between the wall and the diaphragm to no greater than 1/8 in. (3 mm) before engagement of the anchors.

Install new out-of-plane anchorage.

S10

NONSTRUCTURAL CHECKLIST

SHUTOFF VALVES Piping containing hazardous material, including natural gas, does not have shut off valves or other devices to limit spills or leaks.

Install shut off valves for piping containing hazardous material, including natural gas.

N1

FLEXIBLE

COUPLINGS

Hazardous material ductwork and piping, including natural gas piping, do not have flexible couplings.

Install flexible couplings for ductwork and piping containing hazardous material, including natural gas piping.

N2

TOPS The tops of ceiling-high framed or panelized partitions do not have lateral bracing to the structure at a spacing equal to or less than 6 ft.

Independently brace the tops of ceiling-high framed or panelized partitions.

N3

Tier 1 Deficiency

Description Deficiency Statement Repair Statement

Plan Key

Note

PENDANT

SUPPORTS

Light fixtures on pendant supports are not attached at a spacing equal to or less than 6 ft.

Unbraced suspended fixtures are not free to allow a 360-degree range of motion at an angle not less than 45 degrees from horizontal without contacting adjacent components. Alternatively, if rigidly supported and/or braced, they are not free to move with the structure to which they are attached without damaging adjoining components. The connection to the structure is not capable of accommodating the movement without failure.

Provide independent support for light fixtures.

N4

LENS COVERS Lens covers on light fixtures are not attached with safety devices.

Install safety devices for light fixture lens covers.

N5

TALL NARROW

CONTENTS

Contents more than 6 ft high with a height-to-depth or height-to-width ratio greater than 3-to-1 are not anchored to the structure or to each other.

Anchor contents to the structure.

N6

FALL-PRONE

CONTENTS

Equipment, stored items, or other contents weighing more than 20lb whose center of mass is more than 4 ft above the adjacent floor level are not braced or otherwise restrained.

Brace equipment to structure.

N7

FALL-PRONE

EQUIPMENT

Equipment weighing more than 20 lb whose center of mass is more than 4 ft above the adjacent floor level, and which is not in-line equipment, is not braced.

Brace and anchor equipment weighing more than 20 lb, whose center of mass is more than 4 ft above the adjacent floor level.

N8

TALL NARROW

EQUIPMENT

Equipment more than 6ft high with a height-to-depth or height-to-width ratio greater than 3-to-1 is not anchored to the floor slab or adjacent structural walls.

Anchor equipment more than 6ft high with a height-to-depth or height-to-width ratio greater than 3-to-1 to the floor slab or adjacent structural walls.

N9

FLEXIBLE

COUPLINGS

Fluid and gas piping does not have flexible couplings.

Install flexible couplings for fluid and gas piping. N10

FLUID AND GAS

PIPING

Fluid and gas piping is not anchored or braced to the structure to limit spills or leaks.

Anchor and brace fluid and gas piping to the structure. N11

7.0 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

$ 1,777,900.00

$ 294,600.00

$ 61,200.00

$ 25,500.00

$ 339,880.00

$ 2,499,080.00

$ 2,499,080.00

14,000

$ 178.51

The attached engineer’s opinion of probable cost has been developed by ZCS. ZCS has a successful record of completing seismic rehabilitation projects within the State of Oregon. The prices provided in the attached cost estimate have been developed using the extensive list of past projects as a baseline for this project. These prices are based on Oregon BOLI wage rates. The cost estimate is broken down into multiple line items associated with each major task (general conditions, foundation, structural steel, MEP, etc) associated with the rehabilitation.

Additional line items are included for design associated permit costs, and owner construction management. A complete breakdown of the cost estimate can be found in Appendix E. Based upon ZCS’s previous experience

Relocation

This building is an unreinforced masonry structure. Accordingly, it is acknowledged that a Tier 3 evaluation is required prior to the retrofit design. The consultant costs for the Tier 3 evaluation have been included in the cost estimate as a separate line item.

DIRECT COST

Construction

Engineering

Construction Management

Cost/Square Foot

Construction Contingency

TOTALS AND SUMMARY

Total Cost Estimate

Match Funds

Total Amount Requested from SRGP

Total Area

Matthew R. Smith, PE, SE

ZCS Engineering & Architecture’s professional staff has reviewed the subject building and the deficiencies noted in the Tier 1 evaluation, developed seismic retrofit solutions to rectify the deficiencies, and developed the engineering cost estimate. The project cost estimate was developed by ZCS based on unit costs from our extensive list of past seismic retrofit projects as a baseline. We certify to the best of our knowledge, based on known and readily identifiable existing conditions, that all the seismic deficiencies present in the building are included in the retrofit scope of work and that all the retrofit’s scope of work elements are included in the cost estimate.

8.0 Conclusion and Certification Statement

The findings described in this report have been limited to the lateral force-resisting structural system and general assessment of the gravity force-resisting elements. Based on our visual observations, we find the structure to be in relatively good condition and generally safe for occupancy. No significant damage to the existing structural system was discovered.

Given the current condition of the structure, the current code section on existing buildings does not mandate that upgrades are required unless the building is scheduled for repairs, alterations, additions, or change in occupancy. To clarify, upgrades outlined in this report are strictly at the discretion of the District.

Please contact our office if you would like to discuss our findings. Please review the attached schematic drawings that can be used to refine a scope and budget.

Certification Statement

Appendix A:

Figures

Figure 1: East Wall at Music & Office.

Figure 2: East Wall looking north.

Figure 3: East Wall looking south.

Figure 4: South Entrance.

Figure 5: West Wall looking North.

Appendix B:

Tier 1 Check Sheets

Appendix C:

Preliminary Seismic Retrofit

Drawings

G0.0

COVER SHEET

PROJECT

LOCATION

COLTON HIGH SCHOOL CLASSROOM WING SEISMIC RETROFIT

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

COLTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

30205 S. WALL ST.

COLTON, OR 97017

STRUCTURAL REPAIRS:

S1. PROVIDE FULL HEIGHT COLUMNS TO RESOLVE

UNSUPPORTED HINGE IN WALLS.

S2. PROVIDE SEISMIC ISOLATION JOINT TO AVOID POUNDING

OF THE TALLER STRUCTURE INTO THE LOWER

STRUCTURE. PROVIDE ALL NEW GRAVITY FRAMING AND

LATERAL RESISTING ELEMENTS AS NECESSARY TO

PROVIDE BUILDING SEPARATION.

· PROVIDE NEW BEAM CONNECTIONS AND LEDGERS

WITH SLOTTED HOLES THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE

THE REQUIRED DIFFERENTIAL OUT-OF-PLANE

MOVEMENT WHILE TRANSFERRING GRAVITY AND

IN-PLANE LATERAL FORCES AS NEEDED.

S3. INSTALL NEW PLYWOOD SHEAR WALLS IN TRANSVERSE

DIRECTION TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SHEAR REDUNDANCY.

S4. INSTALL NEW PLYWOOD SHEAR WALLS TO ENSURE

ADEQUATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

S5. INSTALL NEW OUT-OF-PLANE ANCHORAGE.

S6. INSTALL HARDWARE TO TRANSFER OF SEISMIC FORCES

FROM DIAPHRAGM TO SHEAR WALLS.

S7. PROVIDE OUT-OF-PLANE RESISTANCE FOR EXISTING URM

WALLS BY INSTALLING NEW WOOD FRAMED WALLS.

S8. PROVIDE NEW CONTINUOUS CROSS TIES BETWEEN

DIAPHRAGM CHORDS.

S9. STRENGTHEN EXISTING PLYWOOD DIAPHRAGM.

A. INSTALL NEW PLYWOOD SHEAR WALLS TO REDUCE

DIAPHRAGM SPANS.

B. RE-NAIL EXISTING PLYWOOD DIAPHRAGM.

S10. INSTALL NEW OUT-OF-PLANE ANCHORAGE.

NON-STRUCTURAL REPAIRS:

N1. INSTALL SHUT OFF VALVES FOR PIPING CONVEYING

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.

N2. INSTALL FLEXIBLE COUPLING FOR PIPING CONVEYING

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.

N3. INDEPENDENTLY BRACE THE TOPS OF CEILING-HIGH

FRAMED OR PANELIZED PARTITIONS.

N4. PROVIDE INDEPENDENT SUPPORT FOR LIGHT

FIXTURES.

N5. INSTALL SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIGHT FIXTURE LENS

COVERS.

N6. ANCHOR CONTENTS TO THE STRUCTURE.

N7. BRACE EQUIPMENT TO STRUCTURE.

N8. BRACE AND ANCHOR EQUIPMENT WEIGHING MORE

THAN 20 LB, WHOSE CENTER OF MASS IS MORE THAN

4 FT ABOVE THE ADJACENT FLOOR LEVEL.

N9. ANCHOR EQUIPMENT MORE THAN 6 FT HIGH WITH A

HEIGHT-TO-DEPTH OR HEIGHT-TO-WIDTH RATIO

GREATER THAN 3-TO-1 TO THE FLOOR SLAB OR

ADJACENT STRUCTURAL WALLS.

N10. INSTALL FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS FOR FLUID AND GAS

PIPING.

N11. ANCHOR AND BRACE FLUID AND GAS PIPING TO THE

STRUCTURE.

REPAIR KEYNOTES

TRUE/PROJECT

NORTH

*SITE PLAN NOT

TO SCALE

BUILDING KEY PLAN

VICINITY MAP

G0.0 COVER SHEET

S1.1 AREA A FOUNDATION PLAN

S2.1 AREA A ROOF FRAMING PLAN

SHEET INDEX

PROJECT NO:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

DATE:

O N

E

IN

C H

E Q

U

AL

S

FU

LL

S

C

AL

E

COLTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

30429 S. GRAYS ROAD

COLTON, OR 97017

COLTON HIGH SCHOOL

SEISMIC RETROFIT

524 Main Street, Suite 2, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 | 503-659-2205

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

D

ES

IG

N

DECEMBER 2023

MRS

PWR

P-2826-22

REVISION ID: DATE:

-P

RELIM

IN

ARY-

NOT FOR C

ONSTRUCTIO

N

AREA A:

CLASSROOM WING

±14,000 S.F.

IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY

URM

AREA C:

CLASSROOM ADDITION

±5,040 S.F.

NOT IN SCOPE

AREA D:

LIBRARY

±6,600 S.F.

NOT IN SCOPE

AREA E:

GYMNASIUM

±25,000S.F.

NOT IN SCOPE

AREA F:

AUDITORIUM

±6,000 S.F.

NOT IN SCOPE

AREA B:

MUSIC & OFFICE

±8,000 S.F.

NOT IN SCOPE

S1, TYPS4

S7

S4 S1, TYP

S4 S4

S4 S4

AREA A - FOUNDATION PLAN

1/8"=1'-0"

S1.1

CAMPUS KEY

NTS

S1.1

AREA A AREA B AREA F

AREA EAREA DAREA C

S3, S7, S9A S3, S9A S3, S9A

S3, S9A

S3, S7, S9A S3, S9A S3, S9A

S3, S9A

HATCH INDICATES

AREA OUT OF

SCOPE OF WORK

S2

S2

S1.1

AREA A

FOUNDATION PLAN

PROJECT NO:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

DATE:

O N

E

IN

C H

E Q

U

AL

S

FU

LL

S

C

AL

E

COLTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

30429 S. GRAYS ROAD

COLTON, OR 97017

COLTON HIGH SCHOOL

SEISMIC RETROFIT

524 Main Street, Suite 2, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 | 503-659-2205

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

D

ES

IG

N

DECEMBER 2023

MRS

PWR

P-2826-22

REVISION ID: DATE:

-P

RELIM

IN

ARY-

NOT FOR C

ONSTRUCTIO

N

AREA A - ROOF FRAMING PLAN

1/8"=1'-0"

S2.1

CAMPUS KEY

NTS

S2.1

S9B

S5, S10, TYP

S8

S10

S8

S6, TYP

S6, TYP

N10, TYP

N5, N6, N7, N8, N9, N11, TYP

S8

N10, TYP N4

S8

HATCH INDICATES

AREA OUT OF

SCOPE OF WORK

AREA A AREA B AREA F

AREA EAREA DAREA C

S5, S10, TYP

S6, TYP

N1, N2, N3, N12 N12

S6, TYP

S6, TYP

S2

S5, S10, TYP

S3, S7, S9A, TYP.

S3, S9A, TYP

S7, S10

S3, S7

S2.1

AREA A

ROOF FRAMING PLAN

PROJECT NO:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

DATE:

O N

E

IN

C H

E Q

U

AL

S

FU

LL

S

C

AL

E

COLTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

30429 S. GRAYS ROAD

COLTON, OR 97017

COLTON HIGH SCHOOL

SEISMIC RETROFIT

524 Main Street, Suite 2, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 | 503-659-2205

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

D

ES

IG

N

DECEMBER 2023

MRS

PWR

P-2826-22

REVISION ID: DATE:

-P

RELIM

IN

ARY-

NOT FOR C

ONSTRUCTIO

N

Appendix D:

Geotechnical Information

��������/�0� 1�� �1�2� 3456)#7#+

��. �2�80�9�9��� :

�� �����.. ;'7';<=>?@A'B4<<'4<CADEF'##G)G!H

I:J� �.10�J �� K����

L>M>NO'P<Q<@ R467$S

44 TU<CAN>@'N<TUEFT<'B%G$'TH %G*V*

4# TU<CAN>@'N<TUEFT<'B#G%'TH %G!$$

4W4 TDA<7XEOD=D<O'TU<CAN>@'N<TUEFT<'B%G$'TH %GVYV

4W# TDA<7XEOD=D<O'TU<CAN>@'N<TUEFT<'B#G%'TH %G*!*

Z> TDA<'>XU@D=DC>ADEF'=>CAEN'B%G$'TH #G$Y#

ZQ TDA<'>XU@D=DC>ADEF'=>CAEN'B#G%'TH #G[+V

TT?\ X>]'ODN<CADEF'?FD=ENX'\>M>NO'B%G$'TH %G++!

CNT CE<==DCD<FA'E='NDT̂'B%G$'TH %GVVV

TTNA NDT̂7A>N_<A<O'\>M>NO'B%G$'TH %G*V*

TTO O<A<NXDFDTADC'\>M>NO'B%G$'TH #GY

T#?\ X>]'ODN<CADEF'?FD=ENX'\>M>NO'B#G%'TH %G!*[

CN# CE<==DCD<FA'E='NDT̂'B#G%'TH %GV+#

T#NA NDT̂7A>N_<A<O'\>M>NO'B#G%'TH %G!$$

T#O O<A<NXDFDTADC'\>M>NO'B#G%'TH %G*

I:J� �.10�J �� K����

L>M>NO'P<Q<@ R467#S

4W4 TDA<7XEOD=D<O'TU<CAN>@'N<TUEFT<'B%G$'TH %GY+$

4W# TDA<7XEOD=D<O'TU<CAN>@'N<TUEFT<'B#G%'TH %G)$)

�.� �/"��0#�/1/���� �!"������� #$���%&'���( &'-*+

�., �/"��0#�/1/���� �!"������� #$���%,'&��( &')2-

1� �/"���0 �/1/!�"/#$�1�!"#��%&'���( ,')&�

1� �/"���0 �/1/!�"/#$�1�!"#��%,'&��( �',)+

�.� �/"��0#�/1/���� �!"������� #$���%&'���( &'3,3

�., �/"��0#�/1/���� �!"������� #$���%,'&��( &',++

4� �/"���0 �/1/!�"/#$�1�!"#��%&'���( ,'-

4� �/"���0 �/1/!�"/#$�1�!"#��%,'&��( �')

������������ 5��6�"�

5��78�� �#$9� ��/#��"��$�/"/#$� ��/#��/$���!#$�� ,-

6:�;�<:=�>

?@/���"@��/$1#�0�"/#$� ����$"���#$�"@/��A�8�/"��/��8��/�����"#�8��!#���!"B���<C;�DC��E6��$��/"��� #$�#����$��!#$"�/87"#������70��$#���� #$�/8/�/"F�#�

�/�8/�/"F�1#��/"���!!7��!F'�5@��0�"��/��� ����$"���/$�"@/��A�8�� �/!�"/#$��@#7���$#"�8��7����#�����/���7 #$�1#���$F�� �!/1/!�� �/!�"/#$�A/"@#7"�!#0 �"�$"��G�0/$�"/#$

�$�����/1/!�"/#$�#1�/"���!!7��!FB��7/"�8/�/"F��$��� �/!�8/�/"F�8F��$9/$�����#��#"@����/!�$���� �#1���/#$���'���<C;�D�C��E6��#�$#"�/$"�$��"@�"�"@��7���#1�"@/�

/$1#�0�"/#$��� ��!��"@���#7$��H7�90�$"�#1��7!@�!#0 �"�$"� �#1���/#$���B�@��/$9��G ��/�$!���$��I$#A���9��/$�"@��1/����#1� ��!"/!�B�$#��"#��78�"/"7"��1#��"@�

�"�$�����#1�!������J7/����#1��7!@� �#1���/#$����/$�/$"�� ��"/$9��$��� �F/$9�"@�����7�"��#1�"@����/�0/!���"�� �#�/����8F�"@/��A�8�/"�'�K�����#1�"@��/$1#�0�"/#$�1�#0

"@/��A�8�/"�����70�������/�8/�/"F���/�/$9�1�#0��7!@�7��'�K���#1�"@��#7" 7"�#1�"@/��A�8�/"���#���$#"�/0 �F�� �#����8F�"@��9#���$/$9�87/��/$9�!#���8#�/������ #$�/8��

1#��87/��/$9�!#���� �#�����$��/$"�� ��"�"/#$�1#��"@��87/��/$9��/"�����!�/8���8F���"/"7��D�#$9/"7����#!�"/#$�/$�"@������!@����7�"��#1�"@/��A�8�/"�'

Colton HS - Active Faults

Maxar

Active_Faults

December 13, 2023 0 0.06 0.110.03 mi

0 0.09 0.180.04 km

1:4,800

Colton HS - Landslide

Statewide Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

December 13, 2023 0 0.06 0.110.03 mi

Colton HS - Liquefaction

Liquefaction_Susceptibility_Map

None

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

December 13, 2023 0 0.06 0.110.03 mi

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet

Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS

Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99

With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR

Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X

Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X

Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X

Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D

NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood HazardZone X

Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D

Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer

Levee, Dike, or Floodwall

Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation

Coastal Transect

Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature

Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)

Effective LOMRs

Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary

Digital Data Available

No Digital Data Available

Unmapped

This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards

The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 12/13/2023 at 1:35 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or…